Re: David G. Walker
ORB File No: 0625
Hearing held on: Friday, October 3, 2025
Place of hearing: 151 Bloor Street West, Toronto (Via Zoom Video Conference)
Pursuant to: Sections 672.69 and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. W. Loza Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: David Walker Counsel: Ms. M. Perez
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 4, 2025)
Introduction
On December 23, 1981, David Walker was found not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”) on charges of attempted choking, robbery, and buggery. Mr. Walker is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”), dated July 13, 2023. This Disposition detains him at The Bath Institution and upon cessation of his incarceration at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – High Secure Forensic Program (“Waypoint” or “the Hospital”), with conditions including that his disposition be reviewed every 24 months.
Following the NGRI finding, Mr. Walker was detained in several different forensic mental health hospitals in Ontario. On May 31, 1997, while on a pass from what was then called the Whitby Mental Health Centre, Mr. Walker was charged with several criminal offences. He was subsequently convicted of sexual assault with a weapon, robbery, forcible confinement, and uttering threats to cause death or harm. On February 16, 1999, Mr. Walker was found to be a dangerous offender and sentenced to detention in a penitentiary, for an indeterminate period. Mr. Walker is currently detained at Bath Institution.
On October 3, 2025, a panel of the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Walker’s Disposition. Mr. Walker’s hearing was held by video conference. Mr. Walker was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
The following Exhibits were entered into the record:
a) A Psychological Risk Assessment, dated May 29, 2025 (the “Risk Assessment”), was entered as Exhibit 1.
b) A Parole Board of Canada Decision, dated August 19, 2025 (the “Parole Decision”), was entered as Exhibit 2.
c) An Assessment for the Parole Decision, dated June 6, 2024 (“Parole Assessment Decision”), was entered as Exhibit 3.
d) A Correctional Plan Update, dated June 3, 2025 (“Correctional Plan Update”), was entered as Exhibit 4.
e) An Assessment for Decision for the Correctional Plan, dated June 16, 2025 (“Decision for Correctional Plan”), was entered as Exhibit 5.
The issues to be determined at this hearing are: 1) whether Mr. Walker continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and 2) if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk, considering the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital submitted that Mr. Walker remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that there should be no change to his current Disposition. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital’s submission.
Counsel for Mr. Walker submitted that Mr. Walker would not be arguing significant threat and agreed that there should be no change to his current Disposition.
Counsel for Mr. Walker advised that his client consented to having his annual review to be every 24 months.
All parties maintained their respective positions in closing submissions.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Walker continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that there should be no change to his current Disposition.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Antisocial Personality Disorder
Multiple Sexual Paraphilias
Substance Use Disorder
Temporal Lobe Lesion
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the Index Offences are excerpted from last year's Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
"On December 23, 1981, Mr. Walker was found not guilty by reason of insanity in relation to charges of attempted choking, buggery and robbery with violence. The offences were perpetrated against an 83-year-old man who was an acquaintance of Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker went to the victim's home demanding money, and when the victim reported having none, Mr. Walker hit him over the head and took $50 from his wallet. He then dragged the victim to the bedroom, choked him with a noose and tied him to the bed. He forced him to perform fellatio and then forced anal intercourse. He was wearing women's pantyhose at the time."
Offences for Which Mr. Walker Was Declared a Dangerous Offender:
- The circumstances of these offences are also excerpted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
"While residing at a psychiatric hospital, Mr. Walker entered an adult retail store in Oshawa, ON. The victim was working alone behind the counter, Mr. Walker approached her and wrapped a shoelace around her neck and wrists. Mr. Walker then demanded that she open the cash register and removed a quantity of cash. Mr. Walker then dragged the victim to the back of the store where he sexually assaulted her. Mr. Walker then dragged her to the basement of the store and confined her with a pair of handcuffs. Before leaving the store Mr. Walker again sexually assaulted the victim by fondling her breasts. Mr. Walker threatened to kill the victim if she told anyone and used a pocketknife to gain the victim's compliance. The victim was eventually able to escape and contact the police after Mr. Walker left the store. The ordeal lasted approximately two hours. Mr. Walker was arrested the next day at the hospital, and he provided police with a full statement. A search of Mr. Walker's room uncovered pornographic magazines, female underwear, sex toys, cash, and three pairs of handcuffs."
The Board understands that the victim was pregnant on the day of the assault, and that she suffered a miscarriage on the following day.”
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Shanay Armstrong, Mr. Walker’s parole officer. She testified as follows:
a) She has been Mr. Walker’s parole officer since May 2024.
b) There are no updates.
c) Mr. Walker was moved from Unit-4 to Unit-5 because of inter-personal concerns with other offenders.
d) Unit-4 is a responsibility-based unit. Mr. Walker shared this unit with eight other offenders.
e) Mr. Walker is engaged with his occupational therapist on a regular basis.
f) He is on the waitlist for the Sexual Offender Maintenance Program.
g) Mr. Walker is involved in full-time employment while on Unit-5. He has applied to change this employment.
h) As set out in the Exhibits, Mr. Walker’s institutional adjustment was assessed as “moderate,” as there were some concerns. There were a few institutional incidents, and he faced one charge, for theft of food.
i) Mr. Walker would like to return to Unit-4.
j) Mr. Walker must meet the following criteria before the institution would consider transferring him back to Unit-4:
i) He must stay out of trouble, with no further incidents
ii) He must incur no further charges
iii) He must show that he can get along, and live, with others.
k) The next review that would consider whether Mr. Walker can be moved will be in June 2026.
l) Mr. Walker struggles with stress and tends to pull away from treatment. He acknowledges that he struggles with change. However, this year he has handled the stress leading up to this Board review much better.
m) Bath Institution, where Mr. Walker is currently held, is described as a medium secure prison and a responsibility-based institution.
- In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Armstrong testified:
a) She agreed that Mr. Walker was diagnosed with alcohol dependence in the psychiatric assessment, as set out in Exhibit 3. To his credit, he has remained abstinent since his incarceration.
b) She agreed with the recommendations set out therein, that Mr. Walker’s current programs and needs are best met at Bath Institution – medium security, for the protection of society, staff members and other prisoners. She agreed that Bath Institution continues to provide Mr. Walker with the least restrictive environment; while still meeting his programming needs and the security needs of others.
c) Because of confidentiality rules, she has no access to his psychiatric assessment and does not know what medications he has been prescribed.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Walker, Ms. Armstrong testified:
a) Mr. Walker has been attending sessions on skill-building, and he has been meeting with his occupational therapist on a regular basis.
b) Mr. Walker has been employed full time, both working in the grocery store and doing mechanical tasks. His employment history is a strength. He has been doing an excellent job, and there have been no incidents while he has been working.
c) His last attendance for maintenance for sexual programming was in 2021. Mr. Walker does wish to participate in the next available maintenance program.
d) Overall, Mr. Walker has continued to show progress cascading through the prison system.
e) Mr. Walker has not engaged in any violent behaviour; rather, he has been the victim of assaults.
f) Mr. Walker has had many interactions with female staff, including parole officers and occupational therapists, and there have been no incidents of sexually inappropriate behaviour.
g) As set out on page 9 of the Correctional Plan Update, Mr. Walker has built a more positive rapport with his current case management team than with his previous team.
h) Mr. Walker participates in the Quiet Time Family Plan, which involves living in a trailer, by himself, away from the inmate population, for a short time. These visits are usually on-site, over a weekend.
- In response to questions from the panel, Ms. Armstrong testified:
a) To the best of her knowledge, Mr. Walker does meet with his psychiatrist and is compliant with his medication regimen. She has no information about what medications he is currently taking, nor about his response to them.
b) She agreed with the assessment set out in his Correctional Plan Update, that Mr. Walker has a high need to improve his personal/emotional orientation, community functioning and attitude.
c) The psychological risk assessment states that Mr. Walker’s risk is in the well-above-average range for sexual recidivism, moderate-to-high range for violent recidivism, and low-to-moderate risk for general recidivism.
d) Mr. Walker does have cognitive issues, which will not improve in the future.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Walker remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The Board finds that Mr. Walker remains a significant threat to public safety, based on the oral evidence before us as well as the following factors, outlined in the Exhibits:
a) History of violent, and sexual, offending: Mr. Walker has a long history of violent, and sexually deviant, behavior, including offenses committed while under psychiatric care. His offenses have caused serious harm to victims, including physical injuries, psychological trauma, and even a miscarriage.
b) High risk for recidivism: Actuarial assessments place Mr. Walker in the well-above-average risk range for sexual recidivism, moderate-to-high risk for violent recidivism, and low-to-moderate risk for general recidivism. His risk remains high despite years of interventions and programming.
c) Mental health issues and cognitive deficits: Mr. Walker has been diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders, including antisocial personality disorder, sexual paraphilias, and borderline intelligence. These conditions contribute to his poor prognosis for rehabilitation and the difficulty in managing his risk factors.
d) Inability to apply program skills: While Mr. Walker has participated in various programs, he struggles to apply the skills learned to his daily life, particularly during stressful situations. His self-management plans are described as basic and lacking in detail.
e) Adjustment issues: Mr. Walker has ongoing interpersonal conflicts and adjustment problems within the institutional setting, requiring regular interventions. He has demonstrated rigidity in thought processes and difficulty coping with change, such as staff turnover.
f) Lack of a release plan: Mr. Walker has not presented a viable release plan and has expressed resistance to parole reviews, indicating he prefers to remain under the jurisdiction of the Board. This lack of planning further underscores the low probability that he would be able to reintegrate safely into the community.
g) Persistent, deviant sexual fantasies: Mr. Walker has a history of risky sexual thinking and inappropriate fantasies involving violence, which remain unaddressed. He has difficulty exploring these issues in-depth because of cognitive limitations.
h) Problematic institutional behavior: Although Mr. Walker has shown some progress, he continues to exhibit adjustment issues, interpersonal conflicts, and impulsive behavior, such as theft and dismissive attitudes toward staff.
Overall, the combination of his criminal history, high risk for re-offending, mental health challenges, inability to apply learned skills, and lack of structure and release plan contribute to the assessment that he remains a significant threat to public safety.
The Board notes that it did not have a report from Mr. Walker’s treating psychiatrist. While it did not need this report to find that Mr. Walker does remain a significant threat to the safety of the public, having such a report in the future would be helpful, to inform the Board about his medication regimen and his response to it.
In particular, the Board relies on the following paragraph from the Correctional Plan Update, which states:
A review of his security file indicates that there have been some interpersonal conflicts with other offenders since the time of the last update. WALKER has had adjustment concerns throughout his sentence, which has continued here at Bath Institution. Since the last review period, WALKER was removed from Unit 4 and went to Unit 5 due to his continued poor behaviour and interpersonal concerns. The move was the result of his negative attitude, inflexibility in thoughts and overall inability to live with others. His continued adjustment concerns are also noted as he was recently told his OT will be leaving this summer. WALKER instantly reacted in a negative manner: dismissing his CMT, not coming to scheduled appointments, and indicating he will not work with his new OT to the extent he worked with his previous ones. Though it is recognized this unwilling and rigid behaviour is most likely connected to abandonment issues, it still causes a major concern. There is always the chance a staff member leaves for different circumstances, and WALKER will need to garner healthy coping mechanisms to learn how to accept and adapt to change effectively.”
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.81(1.2), the Board is satisfied that Mr. Walker’s condition is not likely to improve, and his detention remains necessary and appropriate for the next 24 months.
In making a disposition, the Board must take into consideration the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, which is the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, as well as the accused’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, his other needs.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that Mr. Walker continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that there should be no change to his current disposition.
With the consent of both Mr. Walker and the Attorney General, the time before Mr. Walker’s next hearing shall be extended to 24 months, pursuant to s. 672.81(1.1).
DATED this 4th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board